> On Feb 6, 2026, at 08:07, Marv Gandall via groups.io
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Your comments are thoughtful, Mark, but how do your views square with the
> explosive development of the productive forces in the PRC accompanied by the
> rapid deployment of clean energy which we all favour?
China is the world's largest burner of coal. Western imperialist countries have
turned China into their capitalist manufacturing center, and the Western
countries are importing green technology that's produced by burning coal in
China. If this continues, we will lose any chance of staying below 1.5C while
we produce green energy commodities for some date in the future.
> It’s current trajectory seems more in line with Lenin’s expectations of how a
> state capitalist economy under Communist Party control would perform than the
> wastefully destructive experience you properly draw attention to in the
> former USSR. A Google search revealed the following:
Are you saying, Marv, that there isn't waste in the Chinese economy?
>
> "Key Statistics on China's Climate Action:
>
> Renewable Energy Dominance: China holds one-third of the world's total
> renewable energy capacity. In the first half of 2025, renewables generated
> nearly 40% of the country's total electricity.
Growing use of coal and renewables are positively correlated in China. That may
indicate that there's no such thing as an "energy transition".
>
> Unprecedented Solar and Wind Growth: China is projected to reach its 2030
> goal of 1,200 GW of solar and wind capacity six years ahead of schedule, with
> capacity already reaching 1,680 GW by July 2025.
That's not what we should be looking at. We need fossil fuels to be reduced
rather than the total energy production increased, which China and other
capitalist countries are doing by leveraging both types. The US oil industry
makes great use of wind and solar because flow-generated energy works well for
their applications. In other applications, stock-generated energy like oil,
gas, and coal work better - and are cheaper. The capitalists will tend to go
with the least costly or most profitable solution. As long as China's energy
needs are expanding to make more plastic shit for export, the Chinese state and
capitalists will likely not reduce overall GHG production in Chinese industries.
>
> EV Leadership: In 2025, the penetration rate of new energy passenger vehicles
> reached 52.2%. China produces 70% of all electric vehicles sold worldwide.
Who thinks that planet Earth can support the Chinese population living like the
European and North American populations? Are they all going to have two cars
per family, live in single-family bungalows far away from their workplaces, two
dozen computers on the home giganetwork, air conditioning, and etcetera? Again,
I think your metrics are wrong.
>
> Economic Impact of Green Growth: Clean-energy sectors nearly doubled in value
> between 2022–2025. Without this sector, China's 2025 GDP growth would have
> been 3.5% instead of 5.0%.
There are two different things going on: China is the world's workshop and also
a consumer of the products that they make. China has about 80% - 90% of the
world solar market, and they lead in practically all sectors of renewables like
wind, grid, and batteries. But does that mean that the typical Chinese worker
or farmer is benefiting from this in their apartments and houses? I don't know.
>
> Reforestation and Emissions: Forests and grasslands in China absorb over 1.2
> billion tonnes of CO2 annually. The country also surpassed its 2030 NDC
> target for forest stock volume increase.
> Investments: In 2025, China invested roughly $1.0 trillion in clean energy,
> nearly four times the investment in fossil-fuel extraction and coal power.
You're not employed as a consultant or influencer for China these days, are you
Marv?
>
> Despite being the world's largest emitter, these actions indicate a shift,
> with the possibility of emissions peaking ahead of the 2030 target."
No country has met any targets. Rather than waiting to 2030 to find out how
well it goes in China, we should instead discuss how to reduce energy needs
rather than expand them at the astounding rate that China does, as you have
shown.
thanks, Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#40548): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40548
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
